The court upheld the termination of a workman for unauthorized absence, ruling that the enquiry was fair and the management adequately proved the misconduct despite the workman's claims of unfair treatment.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the award passed by the Additional Labour Court in I.D. No. 280 of 1999 dated 17.07.2009.

2. The brief factual background in which this case arises is that the workman was originally employed in the post of Attender Grade II with effect from 21.03.1988. While so, he was issued with a charge memorandum on 23.12.1993 stating that he was on unauthorised absence without any leave or permission for the period from 11.09.1992, 12.09.1992, 17.09.1992 to 10.08.1993 and from 10.09.2003 to till the date of issue of the charge memorandum. The said charge memo was served on the workman by Registered Post and acknowledgement card is also produced. He did not give any explanation whatsoever to the charge memo denying the charges. Even thereafter, a memorandum dated 21.12.1994 was again served on him requesting him to attend the enquiry. That memorandum was received by him but he did not attend the enquiry.

3. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry in which the workman remained absent. Even in the ex-parte enquiry, witnesses were examined and documents were marked. In the enquiry, the complaint given by the concerned Authority of the Management was marked as Ex.M1. Thereafter, all the returned covers and notices served on the workman periodically for the enquiry proceedings were all marked. One S. Antoniswamy, who was the In-charge personal officer, was examined as the Management witness. On the strength of the said evidence, the Enquiry Officer returned the finding as charge proved.

4. Thereafter, the second show-cause was issued to the workman on 11.07.1994. Only thereupon, the workman submitted an explanation. As per his explanation, his preliminary grievance is that he is qualified in the field of Electrical, but without giving an employment commensurate to his qualification, he was ill-treated by giving a job of Office Attender and therefore, he felt demotivated. On account of this, he was depressed and mentally ill and was wandering here and there without even telling or informing his parents and that is why, he was not able to attend duty at the relevant period. Therefore, he prayed that his absence should not be treated as a misconduct and he prayed for justice. His explanation was not accepted and he was imposed with the punishment by order dated 23.08.1994 terminating his services. Even thereafter, the workman did not immediately raise any dispute.

5. After almost 5 years i.e. in the year 1999, the workman raised a dispute. After the punishment, since there was a industrial dispute pending, the Management filed a petition in Petition No. 97 of 1994 before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of the action taken by the Management. Even before the Industrial Tribunal, after service of notice, the workman remained absent and by an order dated 10.10.1995, after considering the entire facts, approval was granted. Thereafter in the year 1999, the workman raised the present dispute and upon the conciliation ending in failure, the claim petition was taken on file in I.D. No. 280 of 1999 under Section 2(A) 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. It is the claim of the workman that the charge memo has been given to him on the allegation that he was unauthorisedly absent. According to him, the facts that he did not attend the duty are all incorrect. He would further submit that when the charge against him was that he was absent for 8 days and more, it was due to certain family problems that he could not attend duty for certain days, which is not a serious misconduct entailing termination. Therefore, he prayed for re-instatement with back wages and continuity of service.

7. The claim was resisted by the Management by duly bringing to notice about the repeated actions of unauthorised absence. It was further pleaded by the Management that approval has been duly granted and domestic enquiry was conducted with due opportunity.